Inter.spem.et.metum Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 The actual cause of religious conflict is Religion itself. The boundries that are set in a specific ideology do not allow, without an open mind, for change. God, though, if it is what is described by ever form of religion, is constant. And the will of it is to bring humans to a position of peace. Humans use the idea that peace is necessary at all costs to remain at war with themselves. The ends DO NOT justify the means, the means justify the ends. Most religions even describe God as indescribable or unimaginable, yet they deny other religions ideas of it. If humans learned to practice what they preach, then there would be no conflict in the different religions. Therefore the religions would not be "religions" as we understand them, as different ideologies. But they would be different ideas of the same concept. I practice all religions adamantly and I have found no conflict to date. If only others could see the commenalities rather than become antagonistic towards them.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmaromine Posted October 12, 2007 Report Share Posted October 12, 2007 This is almost how I view the god concept, as an atheist. All of the natural-world claims of religions are either factual events, near-factual events, or crazy and have nothing to do with the real world. The divine things they claim can't precisely be proven nor disproven, at least today. I think that the existence of a god is 'possible', but that all religions only try to speak of it with no knowledge of it, and that much of what they claim does not exist how it claims. But, perhaps the concept they are based from is existent. Personally, I don't think that god exists either. But it may exist. Guess that makes me agnostically atheistic ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inter.spem.et.metum Posted October 15, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2007 I disagree with you. I do believe in God as something that IS. It has been and always will be, with or without humans. Humans description of it is simply the perception of patterns of cause and effect. Science, math, literature, history, and even philosophy contain patterns. The point is to find the patterns that exist in nature and in humans, and how they different. With self realization in the formula, the patterns change, but they still exist. Also, some quick info, many of the miracles in the bible can be explained through scientific explanation. Some use that to disprove God's existance. To eaches own... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmaromine Posted October 16, 2007 Report Share Posted October 16, 2007 So humans have walked on water and water does turn into wine and few loaves (or one, whichever) of bread can be multiplied, without magical chemical aid, all under science ? Surely we'd see many more waterwalkers and winelovers buying hundreds of gallons of cheaper-than-wine water and many less hungry people. If divinity isn't needed, I don't get why none of this is possible 2000 years after they were done within science's realm. If you're implying that divinity was necessary, then of course it would have been "possible", but science doesn't extend to holy divineness, because it can't be observed and reobserved and tested and retested and nor does it even exist to be disproven since there's nothing to disprove. The patterns change, yes, and people see new "signs" every day in the craziest of places, but you don't sound like you're describing the male Yahweh of Bible... Almighty It ? A god as the Biblical depiction seems so unrealistic. A male Almighty, creates a dumbed-down clone. . .and that clone created by perfectness is lonely, so God creates an opposite companion from no previous design (...how are women made from God's image ?..) and then she screws up the perfect plan and makes the was-well-off male worse off because he just had to be lonely. It almost makes no sense for god to create a woman – God can do anything, so it didn't make more sense to just give Adam a Steve ?... I mean, God clearly had no plans for any human form other than himself, and all he does is exhibit sexism after she screws up his perfect plan, until the NT where he becomes more "tolerant". Well, maybe I went off into an Adam & Eve rant, but an all-everything god being just like a male human seems ludicrous. Males were dominant 2000+ years ago – why should their god be different ? If you are describing a nonmale nonhuman-like deity, then that doesn't fit in with the Bible as far as I know. . .unless the god's unisex, in which case it would know of male and female. . .and more... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted October 16, 2007 Report Share Posted October 16, 2007 I wouldn't say religion is the CAUSE of conflict. Greed/desire for power perhaps, but not religion.Many people have USED religion as a tool to control the masses in order to further their own desire of power/wealth, but religion in those cases is a tool, not the root cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaurieAG Posted October 17, 2007 Report Share Posted October 17, 2007 Hi Zythryn, I wouldn't say religion is the CAUSE of conflict. Greed/desire for power perhaps, but not religion.Many people have USED religion as a tool to control the masses in order to further their own desire of power/wealth, but religion in those cases is a tool, not the root cause. So, why did they introduce (the original) separation of the powers (of Church and State)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inter.spem.et.metum Posted October 24, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2007 They never seperated church and state, obviously. They only claimed to as part of their marketing scheme. You also have to remember that the "church" is not a good representation of God, it is a representation of a certain religion. I agree that religion is not the root cause of conflict. I am only trying to identify the difference in organized religion and the belief of a connecting force in all things. God, as it is described in all religions, is a variable found in all things. Religion, though, has an underlying theme of seperation. Conflict comes from all things, such is one of the natural laws. But unification does as much as possible to prevent these conflicts, while seperation instills contempt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted October 24, 2007 Report Share Posted October 24, 2007 So, why did they introduce (the original) separation of the powers (of Church and State)? My understanding is it was to protect both the State and Church. IMO freedom of religion was seen as something good, and allowing the State to sanction one official religion would be detrimental to that freedom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.